Interference vs Fair/Foul

[mcrowder]

Batter hits a dribbler right down the third baseline. F5 charging and R1 from third are about parallel to each other coming down the line. F5 cuts in front of R1 to field the ball, but just as she's about to pick it up, R1 collides with her - they both fall, and no one touches the ball.

First question - should I be cognizant about the status (Fair/Foul) of the ball at the moment F5 likely would have picked up the ball? Does that even come into play?

Second question - if the ball was never touched, and eventually stopped short of third base in foul territory (or rolled past third in foul territory), does that negate the interference?

I feel like I botched one here, but want to hear the answers to these two questions first before I tell the rest.

(Edited to add) : ASA Rules

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Batter hits a dribbler right down the third baseline. F5 charging and R1 from third are about parallel to each other coming down the line. F5 cuts in front of R1 to field the ball, but just as she's about to pick it up, R1 collides with her - they both fall, and no one touches the ball.

First question - should I be cognizant about the status (Fair/Foul) of the ball at the moment F5 likely would have picked up the ball? Does that even come into play?

Second question - if the ball was never touched, and eventually stopped short of third base in foul territory (or rolled past third in foul territory), does that negate the interference?

I feel like I botched one here, but want to hear the answers to these two questions first before I tell the rest.

I would say INT.
Q1 If no play was possible because it clearly (in the umpire's judgement) would be foul without the contact, then I guess not.

Q2 - no, if it was INT when there was a chance for a play in fair ground.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Batter hits a dribbler right down the third baseline. F5 charging and R1 from third are about parallel to each other coming down the line. F5 cuts in front of R1 to field the ball, but just as she's about to pick it up, R1 collides with her - they both fall, and no one touches the ball.

First question - should I be cognizant about the status (Fair/Foul) of the ball at the moment F5 likely would have picked up the ball? Does that even come into play?

Second question - if the ball was never touched, and eventually stopped short of third base in foul territory (or rolled past third in foul territory), does that negate the interference?

I feel like I botched one here, but want to hear the answers to these two questions first before I tell the rest.

Answer to First Question: I don't believe we consider what could of happened except in cases of Obstruction. So you either have interference or obstruction or a train wreck.

Answer to Second Questsion: The status of the ball has no bearing on interference in this case. If you deemed it interference then you would have killed the ball immediately when the interference occurred. So what the ball did after that is irrelevant.

This is an interesting play. F5 was in the act of fielding the ball but had to cut in front of the runner to do so. Wow! I could argue for either obstruction or interference. However, once the ball went foul then I believe obstruction would be negated by the status of the ball.

[CecilOne]

"in the act of fielding the ball " can't be OBS

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by rwest

I could argue for either obstruction or interference.

I don't see how it could possibly be obstruction unless you ruled F1 or F2 were the protected fielder attempting to field the batted ball.

If the ball was still a fair ball at the time of the collision, this sounds like interference to me. What the ball does after that is irrelevant.

[LMan]

I have INT all the way. The fielder has nearly 100% protection while attempted to field a fair batted ball. The onus is on R3 to avoid.

What the ball does later is irrelevant.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by LMan

The onus is on R3 to avoid.

Ahem... R1. (This is a softball board.)

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I don't see how it could possibly be obstruction unless you ruled F1 or F2 were the protected fielder attempting to field the batted ball.

If the ball was still a fair ball at the time of the collision, this sounds like interference to me. What the ball does after that is irrelevant.

I agree that if the umpire deems the fielder in the act of fielding then we have interference. Does the reasonableness of fielding the ball every come into consideration? Here's an example. R1 on first base. Slow roller hit up the first base line. F3 moves up into the base path of R1. The ball stops well short of F3 who then has to move up to get to the ball. Do you consider F3 in the act of fielding when she moved up? If so, you have interference when R1 collides with F3. But my contention is that a smart F3 might obstruct the runner but claim she was in the act of fielding. If to field the ball she needed to move further up first base line then I think we have obstruction. In other words, do you protect a fielder who is within the runners base path and they have no reasonable right to be there (i.e no chance of fielding the ball in that position)?

[Al]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I don't see how it could possibly be obstruction unless you ruled F1 or F2 were the protected fielder attempting to field the batted ball.

If the ball was still a fair ball at the time of the collision, this sounds like interference to me. What the ball does after that is irrelevant.

I agree Dakota, the runner must avoid the fielder attempting to field the ball. So in this case the runner would be out even though the ball was not touched on fair ground and ended up foul after the infraction. ..Al

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Ahem... R1. (This is a softball board.)

LOL Fine...I'll scuttle back under my baseball rock now

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by rwest

I agree that if the umpire deems the fielder in the act of fielding then we have interference. Does the reasonableness of fielding the ball every come into consideration? Here's an example. R1 on first base. Slow roller hit up the first base line. F3 moves up into the base path of R1. The ball stops well short of F3 who then has to move up to get to the ball. Do you consider F3 in the act of fielding when she moved up? If so, you have interference when R1 collides with F3. But my contention is that a smart F3 might obstruct the runner but claim she was in the act of fielding. If to field the ball she needed to move further up first base line then I think we have obstruction. In other words, do you protect a fielder who is within the runners base path and they have no reasonable right to be there (i.e no chance of fielding the ball in that position)?

"In the act" includes the approach to the ball from where the fielder was positioned. If the fielder intentionally impeded the runner in the meantime, the only recoure is probably UC.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by rwest

I agree that if the umpire deems the fielder in the act of fielding then we have interference. Does the reasonableness of fielding the ball every come into consideration? Here's an example. R1 on first base. Slow roller hit up the first base line. F3 moves up into the base path of R1. The ball stops well short of F3 who then has to move up to get to the ball. Do you consider F3 in the act of fielding when she moved up? If so, you have interference when R1 collides with F3. But my contention is that a smart F3 might obstruct the runner but claim she was in the act of fielding. If to field the ball she needed to move further up first base line then I think we have obstruction. In other words, do you protect a fielder who is within the runners base path and they have no reasonable right to be there (i.e no chance of fielding the ball in that position)?

If the ball is hit "up the first base line," then how can it be fielded other than by moving into the base path? Would not BR be moving away from the rolling ball in any case, to avoid stepping on it?

If F3 is legitimately attempting to field this ball and not veering to 'crash' the BR (btw, what is F1 doing? ), then yes, shes fielding. In this case the BR must move out of the baseline to avoid F3. The "basepath" has no meaning here, since the ball has not yet been fielded and an attempt to tag/put out the BR has not yet occurred.

I'm still looking for the "no reasonable right to be there" part of your sitch

[WestMichBlue]

mcrowder: First question - should I be cognizant about the status (Fair/Foul) of the ball at the moment F5 likely would have picked up the ball? Does that even come into play

If NFHS, YES. If the ball is on the ground and over foul territory, you have foul ball. If it is in the air over foul territory you have interference, R1 called out.

When you changed the play to 1B line you have a different rule - now you have a batter-runner (rather than runner). If B-R interferes with defender (F1, F3) on a batted ball in the air or on the ground, you can call interference. If it is in the air, you should have an easy call. If it in on the ground, then it probably ought to be near the line such that it has a chance to roll fair.

WMB

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by LMan

If the ball is hit "up the first base line," then how can it be fielded other than by moving into the base path? Would not BR be moving away from the rolling ball in any case, to avoid stepping on it?

If F3 is legitimately attempting to field this ball and not veering to 'crash' the BR (btw, what is F1 doing? ), then yes, shes fielding. In this case the BR must move out of the baseline to avoid F3. The "basepath" has no meaning here, since the ball has not yet been fielded and an attempt to tag/put out the BR has not yet occurred.

I'm still looking for the "no reasonable right to be there" part of your sitch

The post said R1, not BR, but the same principle would apply.

[LMan]

I hate yalls terminology